DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 10-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
According to the USPTO guidelines, a claim is directed to non-statutory subject matter if:
STEP 1: the claim does not fall within one of the four statutory categories of invention (process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter), or
STEP 2: the claim recites a judicial exception, e.g. an abstract idea, without reciting additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, as determined using the following analysis:
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon?
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Using the two-step inquiry, it is clear that claims 10-19 are directed to an abstract idea as shown below:
STEP 1: Do the claims fall within one of the statutory categories (i.e. process, a computer readable medium, i.e. a system)? YES. Claims 10-17 are directed to a method and claims 18-19 are directed to systems.
STEP 2A (PRONG 1): Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon or an abstract idea? YES, the claims are directed towards an abstract idea
With regard to STEP 2A (PRONG 1), the guidelines provide three groupings of subject matter that are considered abstract ideas:
- Mathematical concepts — mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations;
- Certain methods of organizing human activity — fundamental economic principles or practices (including hedging, insurance, mitigating risk); commercial or legal interactions (including agreements in the form of contracts; legal obligations
- Mental processes – concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion).
The claim(s) recite(s):
Claim 1, representative of Claims 18 and 19, recites, a method for parameterizing a scene having a surface on which at least two objects are disposed, using a camera disposed at a distance from the objects, the method comprising the following steps:
a) producing, using the camera, an image of the scene, the image containing image data regarding the objects (mere data gathering step – insignificant extra-solution activity – see Step 2A Prong 2);
b) recognizing at least two objects in the image by evaluation of the image data and assigning each recognized object to a specific object class (mental process - concepts that are practicably performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgement, opinion));
c) estimating an object size of each of the at least two recognized objects in accordance with at least one surface parameter characterizing the surface (Mathematical concepts — mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations);
d) calculating, for each of the at least two object, an individual probability that the object has the object size estimated in step c) (Mathematical concepts — mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations); and
e) calculating a scene probability from the at least two calculated individual probabilities (Mathematical concepts — mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations).
Claim 11 recites the method according to claim 10, wherein the at least one surface parameter characterizing the surface is an angle that is formed by a main ray extending in a straight line from the camera to a head point of each of the recognized objects, with a reference plane on which the recognized object is disposed (Mathematical concepts — mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations).
Claim 12 recites the method according to claim 11, wherein the reference plane is at a foot point of the recognized object, opposite the head point (Mathematical concepts — mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations).
Claim 13 recites the method according to claim 10, wherein by varying the at least one surface parameter characterizing the surface, the scene probability is maximized and a value of the at least one parameter parameterizing the surface at which the scene probability assumes a maximum value is output as a result of the method (Mathematical concepts — mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations).
Claim 14 recites the method according to claim 10, wherein the scene probability is calculated by multiplying the at least two calculated individual probabilities by one another (Mathematical concepts — mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations).
Claim 15 recites the method according to claim 13, wherein, to ascertain the maximum value, at least the measures c) to e) are carried out iteratively, varying the at least one parameter characterizing the surface (Mathematical concepts — mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations).
Claim 16 recites the method according to claim 10, wherein, to estimate the object size of each recognized object in step c), a distance of the recognized object from the camera is estimated and the object size of the recognized object is calculated as a function of the distance (Mathematical concepts — mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations).
Claim 17 recites the method according to claim 16, wherein the distance is estimated in accordance with the at least one parameter parameterizing the surface (Mathematical concepts — mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations).
STEP 2A (PRONG 2): Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? NO, the claims do not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application.
With regard to STEP 2A (prong 2), whether the claim recites additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application, the guidelines provide the following exemplary considerations that are indicative that an additional element (or combination of elements) may have integrated the judicial exception into a practical application:
an additional element reflects an improvement in the functioning of a computer, or an improvement to other technology or technical field;
an additional element that applies or uses a judicial exception to affect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition;
an additional element implements a judicial exception with, or uses a judicial exception in conjunction with, a particular machine or manufacture that is integral to the claim;
an additional element effects a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing; and
an additional element applies or uses the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception.
While the guidelines further state that the exemplary considerations are not an exhaustive list and that there may be other examples of integrating the exception into a practical application, the guidelines also list examples in which a judicial exception has not been integrated into a practical application:
an additional element merely recites the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely includes instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea;
an additional element adds insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception; and
an additional element does no more than generally link the use of a judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use.
Claim(s) 10-19 do not recite any of the exemplary considerations that are indicative of an abstract idea having been integrated into a practical application.
STEP 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? NO, the claims do not recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
With regard to STEP 2B, whether the claims recite additional elements that provide significantly more than the recited judicial exception, the guidelines specify that the pre-guideline procedure is still in effect. Specifically, that examiners should continue to consider whether an additional element or combination of elements:
adds a specific limitation or combination of limitations that are not well-understood, routine, conventional activity in the field, which is indicative that an inventive concept may be present; or
simply appends well-understood, routine, conventional activities previously known to the industry, specified at a high level of generality, to the judicial exception, which is indicative that an inventive concept may not be present.
Claim(s) 10-19 do not recite any additional elements that are not well-understood, routine or conventional.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JANICE VAZ whose telephone number is (703)756-4685. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Matthew Bella can be reached at (571) 272-7778. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JANICE E. VAZ/Examiner, Art Unit 2667
/MATTHEW C BELLA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2667